Luo Chun, Gu Hanyang, Jin Yuhong, Liu Bingyang
Department of Endocrinology, Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital (Ningbo University Affiliated Lihuili Hospital), Ningbo 315040, Zhejiang, China.
Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 311399, Zhejiang, China.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2022 Apr;34(4):352-356. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20210722-01080.
To compare the predictive value of Oxford acute severity of illness score (OASIS) and simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) for in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the data in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 0.4 (MIMIC-IV 0.4). Based on Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria, the basic information of ICU adult sepsis patients with infection and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 within 24 hours of ICU admission admitted for the first time in the database was extracted, including gender, age, vasopressor drugs, sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, OASIS, SAPS II scores, etc. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC curve) was drawn, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the prognostic value of OASIS score and SAPS II score.
A total of 11 098 adult ICU sepsis patients were enrolled in the final analysis, of which 2 320 died and 8 778 survived in hospital, with a mortality of 20.90%. Compared with the survivors, the non-survivors were older [years old: 71 (60, 81) vs. 67 (56, 78)], had longer length of ICU stay [days: 6.95 (3.39, 13.07) vs. 4.23 (2.19, 9.73)] and higher proportions of using vasopressor drugs, sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy [vasopressor drugs: 50.65% (1 175/2 320) vs. 33.05% (2 901/8 778), sedative drugs: 58.53% (1 358/2 320) vs. 48.41% (4 249/8 778), mechanical ventilation: 89.57% (2 078/2 320) vs. 81.66% (7 168/8 778), renal replacement therapy: 11.98% (278/2 320) vs. 6.57% (577/8 778), all P < 0.01]. Moreover, the non-survivors had higher OASIS score [43 (36, 49) vs. 35 (29, 41), P < 0.01] and SAPS II score [49 (40, 60) vs. 38 (31, 47), P < 0.01] as compared with the survivors. ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of OASIS score and SAPS II score for predicting in-hospital death of ICU patients with sepsis was 0.713 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.701-0.725] and 0.716 (95%CI was 0.704-0.728), respectively, and the Delong test showed no significant difference in AUC between the two scoring systems (P > 0.05).
OASIS score has a good predictive value for in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients, which is similar to SAPS II score. OASIS score is simpler and has a broader clinical application prospect than SAPS II score.
比较牛津急性疾病严重程度评分(OASIS)和简化急性生理学评分II(SAPS II)对重症监护病房(ICU)脓毒症患者院内死亡率的预测价值。
采用重症监护医学信息数据库-IV 0.4(MIMIC-IV 0.4)中的数据进行回顾性队列研究。根据脓毒症-3诊断标准,提取数据库中首次入住ICU且在入住后24小时内感染并序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分≥2的成年ICU脓毒症患者的基本信息,包括性别、年龄、血管活性药物、镇静药物、机械通气、肾脏替代治疗、ICU住院时间、OASIS、SAPS II评分等。主要结局为院内死亡率。绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线),并计算ROC曲线下面积(AUC),以比较OASIS评分和SAPS II评分的预后价值。
最终纳入11098例成年ICU脓毒症患者进行分析,其中2320例死亡,8778例存活,死亡率为20.90%。与存活者相比,非存活者年龄更大[岁:71(60,81)vs. 67(56,78)],ICU住院时间更长[天:6.95(3.39,13.07)vs. 4.23(2.19,9.73)],使用血管活性药物、镇静药物、机械通气和肾脏替代治疗的比例更高[血管活性药物:50.65%(1175/2320)vs. 33.05%(2901/8778),镇静药物:58.53%(1358/2320)vs. 48.41%(4249/8778),机械通气:89.57%(2078/2320)vs. 81.66%(7168/8778),肾脏替代治疗:11.98%(278/2320)vs. 6.57%(577/8778),均P<0.01]。此外,与存活者相比,非存活者的OASIS评分[43(36,49)vs. 35(29,41),P<0.01]和SAPS II评分[49(40,60)vs. 38(31,47),P<0.01]更高。ROC曲线分析显示,OASIS评分和SAPS II评分预测ICU脓毒症患者院内死亡的AUC分别为0.713[95%置信区间(95%CI)为0.701-0.725]和0.716(95%CI为0.704-0.728),DeLong检验显示两种评分系统的AUC差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
OASIS评分对脓毒症患者院内死亡率具有良好的预测价值,与SAPS II评分相似。OASIS评分比SAPS II评分更简单,具有更广阔的临床应用前景。